Work In Progress Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 (edited) 17 hours ago, Seahawk said: To which the answer is that they did not, at least initially, sell the aeroplanes under the name Mustang. They sold an aircraft which they called the NA-73, to which the customer applied the name Mustang. What NA called the design originally is irrelevant, as is the question of who created the name (which is not a trademark issue, providing the person who came up in the name wasn't in the business of selling their own aeroplanes with that name). What matters is that NA extensively marketed the aeroplane as a Mustang. Here's a contemporaneous print advert demonstrating such usage. It is the use of a trademark in a given product category that is the wellspring of trademark rights. Edited March 25, 2017 by Work In Progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killingholme Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 (edited) This isn't a new thing. It's interesting that all the major manufacturers kept a very close eye on their branding duing WWII itself- they were never shy of running full page ads in the magazines and press to promote their 'freedom' guaranteeing materiel. Considering a lot of the manufacturers were formerly in the business of selling consumer goods such as automobiles, it's understandable what they were hoping to achieve. What's really interesting that the groups such as GM continued to market their wartime material as branded products. Taking GM as an example, the P-38's were marketed as Cadillac (i.e. premium, precision products), Chevy and Pontiac were building solid and dependable trucks, guns and landing craft, Oldsmobile building hard-hitting hot rod P-61 black widows... it was all just an extension of peacetime brand values. http://www.adbranch.com/how-well-known-brands-advertised-during-world-war-ii-15-pics/ Will Edited March 25, 2017 by Killingholme terrible spelling mistake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drift Posted March 25, 2017 Author Share Posted March 25, 2017 (edited) So does this mean Ford must rename the Mustang to Mutwang? Never thought my question will start a whole off topic debate. But it's cool. So, Fraud must rename the Mustang to Mutwang? Edited March 25, 2017 by Drift Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killingholme Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 By the way, this sort of marketing obviously worked- my grandfather, who was a rural postmaster and shopkeeper, bought an army surplus Willy's jeep after his demob- kept it running on what must have been very draughty local deliveries until the mid 60s when he replaced it with a Land Rover. Will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 2 hours ago, Drift said: So does this mean Ford must rename the Mustang to Mutwang? Not in the slightest. Aviation is a separate product category to automotive. If flying cars ever become a thing then they might have a problem, but not until then. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krow113 Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Jack Daniels. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drift Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 10 hours ago, krow113 said: Jack Daniels. You sharing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krow113 Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Most stolen logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vppelt68 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Model railroading business was hit , maybe 15-20 years ago, by the Union Pacific RR that had an overactive junior copyrights official who decided to claim money from model manufacturers. All h**l broke loose and finally a senior (and more sensible) superior to said official announced a decision, where all model manufacturers had to apply for their permission to use any of the UPRR brands, including all the predecessor roads, but that could be done next to or completely free of charge and with moderate paperwork. They did have to use the TM and (R) etc. when selling UPRR related stuff, but in the end even the model manufacturing business was happy with it. If I recall all that correctly... So, the Boeing might be doing just the same or then not, but who knows? Maybe no need to vent unnecessarily before we know if they dip into our wallets or not. V-P EDIT: just read this http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/licensing/index.htm maybe Boeing has one too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey W Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Back along, when I worked at Airfix, I remember a story of the then M.D. John Grey receiving a bill from 'Lufthansa' for the use of their Logo on the Airfix 1/144 airliner kits. Mr. Grey, after some deliberation and consultation, sent a bill to 'Lufthansa' for promotion and advertising to the same amount. No more was heard ! Mikey W. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Dick Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 It would be interesting to know how much if anything Airfix (Hornby) has to pay for the privilege of using said trademarks... I have no idea whether any money is exchanged but I would like to think Boeing does not charge for the privilege as model kits generate awareness of the aircraft company and its history and generate good will... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louiex2 Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 The trademark issue is not so much with model or toy companies paying Boeing for permission to use a trademaked name, logo, etc. as it is with protecting the trademark from other, bigger, infringements. For example, let's say Airbus decided to name their newest passenger aircraft "Dreamliner." Certainly Boeing would file a lawsuit as they have trademarked that name for a passenger aircraft. But, if Boeing has not been protecting the trademark by sending a cease and desist notification or filing a lawsuitanytime they come across a company using it without permission, Airbus could argue in court that the name "Dreamliner" had defaulted to public domain because Boeing was not being proactive in protecting their trademark. Yes, it's a longshot that the court would rule in favour of Airbus, but, Boeing does not want to take that chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now